THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Firoz, thanks a lot. So I said, that's an
interesting name. He said, I've lived in seven countries. But he also
said he's proud to be an American. And we're proud you're an American.
Thank you very much for inviting me. (Applause.)

You know, I was just standing here, listening to Firoz; one of the great
things about our country is that you can come and you can enjoy the great
blessings of liberty and you can be equally American if you've been here
for one generation or 10 generations. I thought it was neat that somebody
who has been -- you've been here 27 years though, right? Yes. Well, seven
countries, 27 years here, introducing the President though. I think it
says a lot about the United States of America. Thanks for having me.

I'm looking forward to sharing with you what's on my mind. I look forward
to hearing what's on yours, as well. First thing is, Laura sends her best
to the folks of Charlotte. She sends her best, Tony, to you and your
bride. Thank you for having us here, to the Central Piedmont. I
appreciate your involvement in education. I married well; she's a really
patient person, too. (Laughter.)

I traveled down here with Congressman Robin Hayes, the Congressman from
this district. Congressman, thank you for being here, appreciate it.
(Applause.) I've known your Mayor for a long time. He's a man of
accomplishment. I know he was particularly proud to land the NASCAR Hall
of Fame. (Applause.) Pretty big deal, you know? It's a pretty big deal.
Thank you all for coming. I want to thank the others who serve on the City
Council who are here. The Mayor was telling me a lot of the council
members are here. I appreciate your service to your city.

I think one of the things I'd like to tell you about is why and how I made
some decisions I made. My friends from Texas who, once they get over the
shock that I'm actually the President -- (laughter) -- like to ask me what
it's like to be President. And I guess the simple job description would
be, it is a decision-making experience. And I make a lot of decisions.
Some of them you see, some of them you don't see. Decision making requires
knowing who you are and what you believe. I've learned enough about
Washington to know you can't make decisions unless you make them on
principle. And once you make a decision based upon principle, you stand by
what you decide.

In order to make good decisions, you've got to rely upon good people.
People have got to feel comfortable about coming in the Oval Office and
tell you what's on their mind. There's nothing worse than people walking
in, say, well, I'm a little nervous around the guy, I think I'd better tell
him what he thinks he needs to hear.

You can't do the country justice, you can't make good decisions unless
you've got a lot of good, competent people around you, and I do --
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State; Don Rumsfeld -- (applause) -- the
Vice President. These are people who have seen good times, and they've
seen tough times. But in all times, they're capable of walking in and
telling me what's on their mind. That's what you need as the President.
And then once you make up your mind, they say, yes -- yes, sir, Mr.
President, I'll get it done.

The biggest decision I've had to make since I've been your President is
putting kids in harm's way. It's a decision no President wants to make.
It's a decision I wish I did not have to make. But I'd like to share with
you why I made the decision I made.

First of all, war came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001. It was a
war we did not ask for, it's a war we did not want, but it is a war that I
intend to deal with so long as I'm your President. (Applause.) In order
to deal with this war on terror, you've got to understand the nature of the
enemy. And I'll share my thoughts with -- about this enemy we face.

They're an enemy bound together by an ideology. These are not folks
scattered around that are kind of angry and lash out at an opportune
moment. These are people that are -- believe something, and their beliefs
are totalitarian in nature. They believe you should not be able to worship
freely. They believe that young girls should not go to school. They've
got a perverted sense of justice. They believe in the use of violence to
achieve their objectives. Their stated objectives, their stated goals are
to spread their totalitarian view throughout the Middle East. That's what
they want to do.

They have made it abundantly clear that they believe folks who live in
America are weak, that we don't have the will to compete with their
philosophy. That's what they believe. I'm just telling you what they
said. I think it's really important in a time of war for the President to
take the words of the enemy very seriously. And I do.

They think that the use of violence will cause us to lose our nerve and
retreat. And they have stated that they want safe haven from which to not
only topple moderate governments in the Middle East, but from which to
launch attacks against the United States. Given that in mind, I'd like to
share some of the lessons learned. One lesson is the nature of the enemy.

Another lesson is, is that we must defeat the enemy overseas so we don't
have to face them here again. And that requires a strategy that is
offensive in mind: press the enemy, find the enemy, bring the enemy to
justice, never relent, never give them quarter, understand you cannot
negotiate with these people. You can't rationalize with these people, that
you must stay on the hunt and bring them to justice. This is precisely
what we're doing.

One, obviously, immediate target is to dismantle al Qaeda. They hide in
kind of the far reaches of the world. They plot and plan, however, from
the far reaches of the world. They're good at communications. They're
good at deception. They're good at propaganda. And they want to strike
again. We have done a good job of dismantling the operating structure of
al Qaeda -- Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Ramzi Binalshibh -- a series of these
folks that have become the operating element of al Qaeda. Obviously Osama
bin Laden and his sidekick Zawahiri is still at large. We understand that.
But we're looking, and we're listening, and we're working with allies like
President Musharraf of Pakistan, President Karzai of Afghanistan to bring
this -- to bring the head of al Qaeda to justice.

The second lesson learned is that unlike previous wars, these folks -- this
kind of terrorist network that is ideologically bound needs safe haven.
They need a place to hide. They need a symbiotic relationship with
governments that will enable them to plot, plan and attack.

So early on in the conflict, I not only vowed that we would use our fierce
determination to protect this country by staying on the offense, but that
we would deny safe haven to these terrorists. And so I said, if you harbor
a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. And one thing that
I think is really important for our citizens to understand is that when the
President says something, he better mean what he says. In order to be
effective, in order to maintain credibility, words have got to mean
something. You just can't say things in the job I'm in and not mean what
you say.

And I meant what I said. And so we said to the Taliban, get rid of the
Taliban. They chose not to. I made my first decision to send our kids
into harm's way and liberate Afghanistan. The decision to liberate
Afghanistan was based first and foremost on the need to enforce the
doctrine that I thought was necessary to protect the American people. One
of the benefits of sending our kids into harm's way was that we liberated
25 million people from the clutches of one of the most barbaric regimes
known to the history of man.

Laura and I went over to that fledgling democracy. We went to see
President Karzai. It was a remarkable experience. It's hard to describe.
You know, I'm not -- I'm not such a good poet. Let me put it to you this
way: My spirits were lifted to see people committed to democracy,
recognizing that democracy stands in stark contrast to the life these
people had to live under the Taliban.

The task now is to continue to fight off the Taliban and al Qaeda that
would continue to try to disrupt the march of the new democracy, help this
country survive and thrive and grow, and help the Afghan citizens realize
the dreams of men and women that they can live in a free and peaceful
world. Remember, these folks have voted for a President and voted for a
parliament. I'm proud of the progress we're making there. It's an
historic achievement for our country and for our troops. And it was a
necessary achievement to enforce the doctrines that we said were necessary
to protect our people.

Another lesson -- this is an important lesson for the country. It's one
that kind of sometimes can get obscured in the politics of Washington, but
it's one that I'm confident when I tell you it's necessary for this country
to adhere to. It's going to be necessary for me or whoever follows me.
When we see a threat, we have got to take the threat seriously before it
comes to hurt us.

You know, growing up in Midland, Texas, we all felt pretty secure as a kid,
mainly because we thought oceans could protect us. Now in my case, we were
really far away from oceans, too, but nevertheless, it's -- when you think
about it, though, if you're a baby boomer, like me, you think about what it
was like growing up, we knew there was a nuclear threat. Of course we had
put forth an interesting sounding strategy called "mutually assured
destruction," which provided an umbrella for security and safety.

But nevertheless, we never really felt anybody would invade us, did we? We
never felt there would be another attack like Pearl Harbor on our lands.
And yet September the 11th changed all that. More people died on September
the 11th because of an attack by an enemy on our shore than died at Pearl
Harbor. The biggest threat we face is when a terrorist network is able to
acquire weapons even stronger than airplanes. If the terrorist network
were ever to get weapons of mass destruction, one of their stated
objectives, our country and the free world would face a serious threat.

I saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did I see a threat in Iraq, the previous
administration saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did the previous -- which,
by the way, passed a resolution in the United States Congress that said we
ought to have a regime change in Iraq. Not only did the previous
administration see a threat in Iraq, members of both political parties in
both chambers during my time as President saw a threat in Iraq. And the
reason we saw threats is because the intelligence said that Saddam Hussein
possesses weapons of mass destruction.

But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that, there was -- the
worldwide intelligence network felt like he had weapons of mass
destruction. After all, when I took the case to the United Nations
Security Council, the Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say loud and
clear: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. That's not what the
United States said alone. This is what France and Great Britain, China,
Russia, and members of the Security Council said, because the world felt
like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and after 9/11 it was
abundantly clear that a state sponsor of terror, which is what he had been
declared by previous administrations, and the idea of weapons of mass
destruction, and the fact that he was at least, at the very minimum, a
stated enemy of the United States of America posed a serious threat for our
country.

My biggest job is to protect the American people. That became abundantly
clear on September the 11th. It's important to pass good reform for
education, it's important to support the community college system, it's
important to work for, you know, a Medicare plan that meets the needs. My
biggest job is to protect you -- at least that's how I see the job. Much
of my decision-making, by the way, is based upon what happened on September
the 11th. It had an effect on me, just like it had an effect on the
country. I've never forgotten that day. I've never forgotten the lessons
learned, and so when we saw a threat, we got to take it seriously. Oceans
could no longer protect us. The enemy was able to strike us and kill, and
they were dangerous.

And before a President ever commits troops, you got to try diplomacy at all
costs. I'm going to say to you what I said before, putting those kids in
harm's way is a tough, difficult decision. And nobody should ever want to
do it, because I understand fully the consequences of the decision. And so
as I told you, I went to the diplomatic route. I was hoping that when the
world spoke with that one voice at the United Nations Security Council,
Saddam Hussein would see the reason of the free world. But he didn't.

I felt all along the decision was his to make. He said -- the world said,
disclose, disarm. In the meantime, I want you to remember, he was
deceiving inspectors. It's a logical question to ask: Why would somebody
want to deceive inspectors? I also told you earlier that when America
speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we embraced
that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.
Words mean something in this world if you're trying to protect the American
people.

I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as
disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam
Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction.
He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was firing
at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein
was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.
(Applause.)

Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror. The war on terror is
broader than Iraq, but Iraq is the key battlefield right now. And the
enemy has made it so.

The advance of democracy frightens the totalitarians that oppose us. Mr.
Zarqawi, who is there in Iraq, is al Qaeda. He's not Iraqi, by the way.
He is there representing the al Qaeda network, trying to stop the advance
of democracy. It's an interesting question, isn't it, why would somebody
want to stop democracy -- like, what's wrong with democracy; Mister, why
are you afraid of it? Are you threatened by the fact that people get to
speak and you don't get to dictate? Are you threatened by the fact that
people should be able to worship the Almighty freely? What about democracy
that bothers -- I think it's a legitimate question we all ought to be
asking.

But nevertheless, he's tough, and he's mean, and he'll kill innocent people
in order to shake our will. They have stated, clearly stated -- they being
al Qaeda -- that it's just a matter of time for the United States to lose
its nerve. They recognize they cannot beat us on the battlefield, they
cannot militarily defeat the United States of America, but they can affect
our conscience. And I can understand why. Nobody likes to see violence on
the TV screens. Nobody wants to see little children blown up when a U.S.
soldier is trying to give them candy. Nobody likes to see innocent women
die at the hands of suicide bombers. It breaks our heart.

The United States of America is an incredibly compassionate nation. We
value human life, whether it be here at home, or whether it be abroad.
It's one of the really noble features of our country, I think. Nobody
likes to see that, and the enemy understands that, however. They know that
if we lose our nerve and retreat from Iraq, they win.

We've got a strategy for victory in Iraq. It's important for you to know
that victory will be achieved with a democracy that can sustain itself, a
country that will be able to defend itself from those who will try to
defeat democracy at home, a country that will be an ally in the war on
terror, and a country that will deny al Qaeda and the enemies that face
America the safe haven they want. Those are the four categories for
victory. And they're clear, and our command structure and our diplomats in
Iraq understand the definition of victory.

And we're moving that way, we're moving that way. We've got a plan to help
rebuild Iraq. You know, when we first went in there -- by the way, every
war plan or every plan is fine, until it meets the enemy. But you've got
to adjust. You've got to be able to say on the ground, well, this is
working, this isn't working. The enemy is not a -- they think differently,
they make different decisions, they come up with different tactics to try
to defeat us. And it's very important for us -- for me to say to our
commanders and our diplomats, devise that strategy on the ground; keep
adjusting, so that we achieve the victory that we want.

So when we first got into Iraq, we went with big rebuilding projects. You
know, we're going to help them do this, and help them do that, big
electricity projects. And the enemy blew them up. And so what we've done
now is we've gone to a more rational strategy to provide money for local
folks, including our military, to help smaller projects, but projects that
are able to connect with the people on the ground. You know, jobs helps a
lot, if you're trying to say, democracy is worth it.

Second aspect of our plan was to promote democracy. And I know four months
in the way these news cycles work seems like a decade -- at least it does
to me at times, you know? (Laughter.) Four months ago, 12 million people
went to the polls. It was an amazing event, wasn't it, I mean, really
think about it. You can project back to the amazement, surprise,
exhilaration that happened when, given a chance to vote for the third time
in one year, the Iraqi people having had suffered under the tyranny of
Saddam Hussein said, I want to be free. That's what we want to be. That's
what they said. Twelve million people, in the face of incredible threats
and potential suicide bombers -- and ugly words coming out of those who
fear democracy -- said, give me a chance. It was an amazing experience.
It was a -- in my judgment, a moment that is historic.

Part of the task now is to say to the Iraqis -- leaders, the people said
something, now you need to get -- you need to act. You need to get a unity
government together. And that's what we're watching right now. It takes a
while for people to overcome the effects of tyranny, and there's just a lot
of politics happening in Iraq. It's a little different from what used to
be the place. It's a little different from other countries in that part of
the world where one person makes a decision, and everybody kind of either
likes it or doesn't like it, but you keep your mouth shut if you don't like
it.

Here you're watching people kind of edging for responsibility and working
it, and we're very much involved. I know you know Condi went over there
the other day, and her message was, let's get moving. The people want
there to be a unity government. The people want there to be a democracy,
and it requires leadership for people to stand up and take the lead. And
so we're working with them to get this unit government up and running.

And then there's the security side. You can't have a democracy unless the
people are confident in the capacity of the state to protect them from
those who want to stop the advance of democracy. The enemy for a while
tried to shake our nerve. They can't shake my nerve. They just can't
shake it. So long as I think I'm doing the right thing, and so long as we
can win, I'm going to leave our kids there because it's necessary for the
security of this country. If I didn't think that we could win, I'd pull
them out. You just got to know that. I cannot sit with the mothers and
fathers of our troops in harm's way and not feel like victory is necessary
and victory will be achieved.

Part of my decision-making process about whether they're there is based
upon whether or not the goal is necessary and attainable. It's necessary
to protect this country. I'm going to talk about it a little later. And
it is attainable. It's attainable because the Iraqis on the political side
have said, you bet. Give us a chance. They wrote a constitution; they
ratified the constitution. Twelve million went to the polls. That's a
high voter turnout, by the way. On the security side, our goal, our
mission is to let the Iraqis take the fight. And as I -- I've always been
saying, they stand up, we stand down. That means, we train the Iraqis to
take the fight to those who want to disrupt their country.

And we're making good progress on the military side. By the way, we had to
change our tactics. When we first got there, we said, why don't we train
us an army that will be able to protect from an outside threat. It turned
out there wasn't much of an outside threat compared to the inside threat.
And so now the training mission has adapted to the tactics of the enemy on
the ground. We're embedding our guys with the Iraqi army. They're
becoming more efficient. There's over 200,000 trained. And we're
constantly monitoring the quality of effort. And as the quality of the
forces improves, they take over more territory. The idea is to have the
Iraqi face in front, making the -- helping the folks get the confidence in
their government.

We lagged in police training. And so General Casey, as he -- who is our
General on the ground there, told me, he said, you know, this is going to
be the year of training the police so they can bring confidence to people.

The enemy shifted its tactics, as you know, and has tried to create a civil
war. And they blew up the -- one of the holiest sites in Samara, trying to
get the Sunnis to get after the Shia, and vice versa. It's been an
objective for awhile. First it was go after coalition troops. They're
still danger for our troops, don't get me wrong. But they really tried to
incite a civil war. And what was interesting to watch is to watch the
reaction for the -- by the government. The government, including many of
the religious leaders, stood up and said, no, we don't want to go there;
we're not interested in a civil war.

The Iraqi troops did a good job of getting between some mosques and crowds,
and they got in between competing elements and stood their ground. And as
I put it awhile ago, they said, the Iraqi people looked into the abyss and
didn't like what they saw. And it's still troublesome, of course. There's
still sectarian violence. You can't have a free state if you've got
militia taking the law into their own hands.

Now remember, this is a society adjusting to being free after a tyranny.
And Saddam Hussein's tactics to keep the country in check was to pit one
group of people against another and say, I'm the only stabilizing force for
you. He was brutal on Shia, he destroyed with chemical weapons many Kurds,
and he was tough on Sunnis, too. But he created a kind of -- this sense of
rivalry.

And so you can understand why there's revenge after years of this kind of
tension he created. Our job, and the job of rational Iraqi leaders is to
prevent these sectarian reprisal attacks from going on. And it's tough
work, but I want you to know, we understand the problem. More importantly,
General Casey understands the problem.

We're adjusting our tactics to be able to help these Iraqis secure their
country so that democracy can flourish. They want democracy. That's what
they've said. The troops, time and time again, have shown that they're
better trained than before. And we've got more work to do on that, I
readily concede. There's a lot of debate and a lot of questions about
what's happening, I understand that.

Again, I repeat to you, I know what violence does to people. First of all,
I'm confident -- people are saying, I wonder if these people can ever get
their act together and self-govern. The answer is, I'm confident they can
if we don't lose our nerve.

One of the decision -- principles -- a principle on which I made decisions
is this: I believe that freedom is universal. America was founded on the
natural rights of men and women, which speaks to the universality of
freedom. And if you believe in the universality of freedom, then you have
confidence that if given a chance, people will seize that opportunity. No
question the Iraqis need help after living under the thumb of a tyrant.

But freedom is embedded, I believe, in the souls of men and women all over
the earth. You know, you don't demand freedom just -- more than Methodists
demand freedom, let me put it to you that way. I'm a Methodist.
(Laughter.) There's an interesting debate -- is it imposing one's values
to encourage others to live in freedom? I argue the answer to that
question is, absolutely not, if you believe in the universality of freedom.

And so while thrilled to see the vote, I was -- I wasn't shocked. People
want to be free. I know you're thinking about, well, when's he going to
get our troops out of there? There's a debate going on in Washington,
D.C., which it should, and it's an important debate about our troop levels.
Here's my answer to you: I'm not going to make decisions based upon polls
and focus groups. I'm going to make my decisions based upon the
recommendations of our generals on the ground. They're the ones who decide
how to achieve the victory I just described. They're the ones who give me
the information.

I remember coming up in the Vietnam War and it seemed like that there was a
-- during the Vietnam War, there was a lot of politicization of the
military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my
administration. They say, well, does George Casey tell you the truth? You
bet he tells me the truth. When I talk to him, which I do quite
frequently, I've got all the confidence in the world in this fine General.
He's a smart guy, he's on the ground, he's making incredible sacrifices for
our country, and he -- if he says he needs more troops, he'll get them, and
if he says he can live with fewer troops because the Iraqis are prepared to
take the fight, that's the way it's going to be.

There are some in Washington, D.C. and around the country who are good
folks, legitimate, decent folks, saying, pull the troops out. That would
be a huge mistake. It would be a huge -- it would be a huge -- (applause)
-- hold on a second -- it would be a huge mistake for these reasons: The
enemy has said that they want us to leave Iraq in order to be able to
regroup and attack us. If the American people -- the American government,
not the people -- were to leave prematurely before victory is achieved, it
would embolden the enemy.

Now, I recognize some don't see the enemy like I do. There's kind of a
different view of the enemy. That's a good thing about America, people can
have different points of view, you know? And people should be allowed to
express them, which is great.

I see an enemy that is totalitarian in nature, that's clearly stated they
want to attack us again, and they want safe haven from which to do so.
That's why they're trying to stop democracy in Iraq. If we were to pull
out our troops early, it would send a terrible signal to the Iraqis.
Twelve million people said, I want to be free. And they need our help.
We're helping the Iraqis achieve freedom. They watch these deals. They
listen carefully to the debate in America. They need to watch -- by the
way -- they need to watch this debate, which is good. It's what free
societies do, they debate. But they're also listening very carefully about
whether or not this country has got the will necessary to achieve the
objective.

Thirdly, if we left before the mission was complete, what would it say to
our troops and the families, particularly those who have lost a loved one?
I spend -- let me say this about our military -- the volunteer army is a
necessary part of our society. We need to maintain the volunteer army. It
is a really -- we've got a magnificent group of men and women who serve our
country. Do you realize most people who served, are serving today,
volunteered after 9/11? They saw the stakes, and they said, I want to join
the United States military. The retention rate is high, which means we've
got people serving in uniform who not only volunteered and saw the stakes,
but have been involved in this conflict and said, I'd like to stay in the
military.

It is a -- the military is a vital part of securing this country in the war
on terror. Now, if you don't think we're at war, then it probably doesn't
matter that much. I not only think we're at war, I know we're at war. And
it's going to require diligence and strength and a really -- and a military
that's well paid, well housed, well trained, where morale is high. And
pulling out before the mission is complete would send a terrible signal to
the United States military.

I welcome the debate, but I just want people here to know, we're going to
complete the mission. We'll achieve victory. And I want to say this to
the Iraqi people: We want to help you achieve your dreams. And the United
States of America will not be intimidated by thugs and assassins.
(Applause.)

I got one more thing to say, then I -- I got one more thing to say. I know
I'm getting a little windy. I want to talk to people about why it's
important for us to succeed in Iraq, and Afghanistan, for that matter. I
told you there's a short-term reason -- deny safe haven and help get allies
in the war on terror to prevent this totalitarian movement from gaining a
stronghold in places from which they can come hit us.

There's a longer term reason, as well, and that is, you defeat an ideology
of darkness with an ideology of hope and light. And freedom and liberty
are part of an ideology of light. Our foreign policy in the past has been
one that said, well, if the waters look calm in parts of the world, even
though there may not be freedom, that's okay. The problem with that
foreign policy is below the surface there was resentment and anger and
despair, which provided a fertile ground for a totalitarian group of folks
to spread their poisonous philosophy and recruit.

The way to defeat this notion of -- their notion of society is one that is
open, that is democratic, that is based upon liberty. This doesn't have to
be an American-style democracy. It won't be. Democracy has got to reflect
the tradition and the history of the countries in which it takes hold. I
understand that. And nobody in the Middle East should think that when the
President talks about liberty and democracy, he's saying you got to look
just like America, or act like America. Nobody is saying that.

I am saying, though, trust your people; give them a chance to participate
in society. I believe a society is a whole society in which women are free
and are given equal rights. I believe there's a whole society in which
young girls are given a chance to go to school and become educated. I
believe it's a whole society when government actually responds to people
not dictates to people. That's what I believe. And I believe that it's
the best way in the long run to defeat an ideology that feels the opposite
way. And we've seen it happen in our history before. It's happened in
some of your lifetimes.

One of the ways I like to describe what I'm trying to tell you is about my
relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. I say this all the
time, as the press corps will tell you traveling with me -- when is he ever
going to quit saying that? Well, it's the best example I can give you about
what I'm trying to describe is happening today during these historic times.
My dad fought the Japanese as an 18-year-old kid -- or 19 -- he went in at
18, I guess. But he was in combat. Many of your relatives fought the
Japanese. It's hard to think back and kind of remember the bitterness that
we had toward the Japanese. They attacked the United States of America and
killed a lot of folks. And we want to war with them, and a lot of people
died, and it was a bloody war.

After the war -- and by the way, it ended with an old doctrine of warfare,
which is, destroy as many innocent people as you can to get the guilty to
surrender. That's changed, by the way, with the precision nature of our
military, and the way we're structured, and the way our troops think, is we
now target the guilty and spare the innocent. That's another subject if
you got a question. But anyway, today my friend in keeping the peace is
Prime Minister of Japan.

Amazing, isn't it? Maybe you take it for granted. I don't. I think it's
one of the really interesting parts of -- one of the interesting stories of
history, that 60 years after we fought the Japanese, I can tell you that I
work with Prime Minister Koizumi on a variety of issues. It's amazing, I
think. I know 60 seems like a long time. If I were six or seven, it would
seem like a long time. At 59, it seems like a long time. (Laughter.)
Maybe when I'm 60, it will seem like a short time.

Anyway, so what happened? What was it that caused something to change, an
enemy to become an ally? I believe it's because the Japanese adopted a
Japanese-style democracy. And I appreciate the fact that one of my
predecessors, Harry S. Truman, had the foresight to see the capacity of
freedom, the universal right of people to change the world, to make it so
that eventually an American President would be able to say, we're working
together to keep the peace. They're no longer an enemy; they're a friend.
Democracies don't war.

Europe is whole and free and at peace for a reason. We lost thousands of
troops on the continent of Africa -- on the continent of Europe since World
War I. Thousands and thousands of young men and women lost their lives
during that war. And today, there's peace. And the reason why is because
democracies don't war with each other.

I believe that one day an American President will be talking about the
world in which he is making decisions, or she is making decisions, and
they'll look back and say, thank goodness a generation of Americans
understood the universality of liberty and the fact that freedom can change
troubled parts of the world into peaceful parts of the world.

Is it worth it in Iraq? You bet it is. It's worth it to protect ourselves
in the short-run, but it's necessary and worth it to lay the foundation of
peace for generations to come. And that's what's on my mind these days.
(Applause.)

I'll be glad to answer questions. Yes, ma'am.

Q Mr. President, thank you so much for (inaudible). (Inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: Good.

Q (Inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: Good. You're welcome here. (Laughter.) This is not a
political convention. (Laughter.)

Q But more importantly, I'm American, and my husband and I are proud
parents of four children and five grandchildren, and I care very deeply, as
you, about our future as a country and our place in the world.

THE PRESIDENT: Good.

Q I agree with you completely, that -- (inaudible) -- our borders, that
we needed to defend our country against al Qaeda and was completely with
you there. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, as many are --
(inaudible) -- the world. But I am more concerned about the deficit that
we are incurring in this country and the effect that that will have on my
children and grandchildren, and our present. My colleagues here on the
city council and I were just talking about how we can't afford after-school
enrichment opportunities for the children of Charlotte because of cutbacks
in the community development block grant. And I just --

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question, thank you.

Q That we need to secure our borders, to protect our ports, and to
invest in the people of Charlotte and this country --

THE PRESIDENT: Good.

Q -- for a real national --

THE PRESIDENT: I got your question, thank you. It's a good question. She
basically -- no seriously, it's a legitimate question. What are you doing
about the deficit? You know? There are two types of deficits that I want
to describe to you. One is the current account deficit. It's the deficit
that -- that we're on plan to cut in half by 2009. There's an interesting
debate in Washington about how do you deal with a current account deficit?

By the way, we -- and the area where we're able to affect the deficit the
most, because through some of the programs you described called,
discretionary spending. There's also discretionary sending and mandatory
spending. Mandatory spending is a formula-driven spending that happens
based upon conditions, not based upon necessarily legislation, although you
can change mandatory spending through formula adjustment. Mandatory
spending in Social Security, mandatory spending Medicare, mandatory
spending Medicaid, programs like that, farm program is mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is some of the education programs you described.
Discretionary spending is also military spending.

We -- I'm going to put this in a little larger context. I promise to
answer your question. We were confronted with a series of hurdles to
economic growth that we had to deal with in Washington. We had a stock
market correction -- a quite significant stock market correction, and we
had a recession early in '01. And then the enemy attacked us, which hurt
our economy. Obviously, my decision to go to war. People don't -- you
know, war is an unsettling thing. I fully understand that. Sometimes it's
not conducive to risking capital during a time of war. We had a major
natural disaster. All of this affected our economy.

I made the decision to cut taxes, as you know. It was a decision based
upon the principle that if people had more money in their pocket, they're
likely to spend it, save it, or invest it. And therefore, I felt like the
best way to address these economic hurdles was to stimulate our economy
through pro-growth economic policies, starting with a tax cut. And a tax
cut, by the way, for everybody. Everybody who paid taxes should get a cut.
It's a tax cut that helped our small businesses. I firmly believe by
cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains it stimulated investment.

And our strategy has, I think, been proven by the numbers. We're going at
3.4 percent -- 3.5 percent last year. The national unemployment rate is at
4.8 percent, 5 million jobs in two-and-a-half years. I mean, I can go on
-- housing is up. There's a lot of positive economic news. And no
question, however, we've been running a deficit.

One reason we're running a deficit is because I'm going to make sure our
troops have what it takes to do their job. In the harm's way -- when
they're in harm's way, you've got to be able to say to their families that
we're going to give them all they got. You know, we want to help them.

One of the interesting things about, for this war, is that we're saving a
lot of lives through a health care system that is phenomenal and we're
pulling these kids off the battlefield and sending them to Walter Reed or
Bethesda as quickly as possible, sparing no expense to save lives. But no
question it's been costly.

Katrina -- we're up to $100 billion on Katrina. I don't know if you've
been over there. You know, it just breaks your heart to see the
devastation done in the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and inside New Orleans.
It's a gut-wrenching experience to see the devastation that went on, and
the federal government has made a strong commitment to provide that money.

That's background for -- no question we have a current account deficit. I
have submitted a budget that says we can cut it in half by 2009. Now,
there is a debate in Washington. Some of them are saying, raise the taxes
in order to balance the budget. In all due respect, that's not the way
Washington works. Washington will raise the taxes and figure out new ways
to spend the money. So my attitude is, let's leave the pro-growth economic
policies in place, which by the way, yielded a $100 billion-plus more money
than anticipated last year because a growing economy yields more tax
revenues, and be tough on the spending.

And I understand it creates some of the conditions you said, and I
appreciate you bringing those to my attention. We're now in another budget
discussion in Washington. And I submitted another tough budget. Now,
people said, why don't you veto the budgets? I'd like to explain that to
you. So we sit down from the executive branch and negotiate -- we come up
with a budget that we think is necessary to meet goals. The goal is to cut
the current account deficit in half by 2009, and then we negotiate with the
Congress. We say, here's the top line, here's what we want you to meet in
order to meet the goals we think are necessary.

Thus far, they've hit the top line that we've suggested. Last year as the
Councilwoman mentioned, the Mayor pro tem mentioned, that there are some
cutbacks in CDBG money. It's all aimed at trying to get this deficit under
control. And the -- and so Congress said, last year, you're right. Here's
the top line. We made it.

And so the size of the pie was what we thought was necessary to achieve an
objective. And so therefore, I'm confronted with a choice. I may not like
the slices of the pie, but I like the size. And if I vetoed bills because
of the slices but it met the size, what would happen during the next budget
negotiations? They'd say, well, wait a minute, we hit your number, you
vetoed the bills. How can we trust you in good faith?

The job of the President is to set a goal which is to reduce that deficit
in half by 2009. And if people want me to be able to deal with slices of
the pie, just give me the line-item veto. And I think that will help make
sure that -- (Applause.)

Let me talk about another thing. I'm sorry -- this is a long answer to a
very important question. I'm sorry I'm blowing on too much here, but the
real deficit -- I'll get you in a minute -- the real deficit, another real
deficit is the deficit inherent in Social Security and Medicare.

There is a massive amount of unfunded liability inherent in those two very
important programs. And the reason why is, is that baby boomers like me
are getting ready to retire. And there's a lot of us, and we're living
longer than the program initially anticipated, and we've been promised
greater benefits, and fewer people per retiree paying into the system. And
the system is going to go broke, and a lot of people are watching whether
or not the United States has the will to address this problem because if we
don't, future Presidents and future Congresses are going to have to raise
taxes significantly, reduce benefits significantly, or reduce other
programs significantly. This is a significant problem facing a future
generation of Americans.

As you know, I took the problem on last year. I might have been the only
guy in Washington taking the problem on. (Laughter.) My theory was, go
out and explain to the American people we got a problem. And the people
now understand we got a problem, and the fundamental question is, how do
you translate that to a program that Congress will act on.

And so my second strategy has been -- remember we're always adapting our
tactics -- was to put together a bipartisan group, which we're in the
process of doing, of members from both political parties from both chambers
to come up with common ground so we can say to the American people, here is
a bipartisan approach to these very serious, unfunded liabilities that face
future generations of Americans. It's a short-term account. It's very
important -- no question, Madam Councilperson. The long-term issue is
equally, if not greater of importance, which is the unfunded liabilities
inherent in Social Security and Medicare. I'm going to continue to take on
the issue. It's a big issue, and I'm confident we can get it solved.

Okay, yes, sir.

Q (Inaudible.) I want to thank you for coming back to Charlotte again.
We certainly enjoyed your wife here a few weeks ago. Okay, thank you. But
I just wanted not to ask a question, but just to offer you a message of
encouragement. I know many men and women in this room and around our
region -- both Democrat and Republican -- continue to pray for wisdom and
encouragement for you and strength during these times. So we just want to
continue to encourage you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Appreciate you. (Applause.)

I'd like to say one thing about religion -- religion and politics, if you
don't mind. The United States of America must never lose sight of this
beautiful principle: You can worship or not worship and you're equally
American. You're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim,
atheist, agnostic. We must never lose sight of that. That's what
distinguishes us from the Taliban.

Having said that, I cannot thank you all enough for the prayers. It means
a lot to me and Laura. One of the most amazing aspects of the presidency
is to meet total strangers, and they say, I pray for you. They don't say,
I need a road or a bridge. (Laughter.) The Mayor might have said that.
(Laughter.) Or a museum. They say, I pray for you, Mr. President. Thank
you.

Let's see. Yes, ma'am.

Q -- I wouldn't get a chance to ask you questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Why is that?

Q Just because there would be -- you might not choose me. (Laughter.)
Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't bet against yourself is lesson one.

Q Right. And I wanted to say to you, Mr. President, that on the war on
terror, Social Security, the tax cuts, Dubai Ports, immigration, you have
shown immense political courage. And I really think that you will be
vindicated on all of those positions, as Ronald Reagan was, for example.
And also I wanted to know what else would it take for me to get my picture
taken with you? (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: My attitude is, about this job, is just do my job. Say
what you think is right. There's an interesting sense about whether this
poll or that poll, I'm just going to tell you something about the
presidency. You cannot make decisions based upon polls. You've got to
stand -- I'm not trying to elicit applause here, I'm just trying to share
with you what it's like, as best I can, to be your President, at least why
I do what I do.

And I am -- I'm the kind of fellow that -- it's like the Social Security
issue. You know, they say, well, you shouldn't have brought it up, you
know. I can't live with myself if I see a problem and not willing to
address it. I want, after eight years, to be able to walk out of that
office and say, I did what I thought was right.

Now, you talk -- an interesting thing is, I'm reading a lot of history
these days, and it's -- I've got some books to recommend, if you like them,
you know. (Laughter.) In contrary to what some of them think back there,
it's not big print and pictures, either. (Laughter and applause.) Yes.
Yes, I got you, thank you. (Laughter.)

I read three books on George Washington. I think it's really interesting,
isn't it? Historians are still analyzing the first President of the United
States. And history is -- sometimes history doesn't record the immediate
effects of a presidency. And you just do what you think is right, and you
don't have to -- you can't worry about it, you know. If they're still
writing about Washington, you know, who knows how long I will be gone
before they're writing about me in a way where there's enough time between
the day -- the presidency -- and an objective look of what takes place.

You heard me quoting Harry Truman. I bet you when Harry Truman made the
decision to help the Japanese become a democracy, there was some
editorialization basically saying, how dare you work with an enemy. You
know, I bet there was some of that. But there was a lot of skepticism, and
I can understand that, you know? I can understand why people are skeptical
about whether or not a democracy can take hold in a part of the world like
the Middle East. My only point to you, it's necessary for the peace. It
has worked in the past, and it's necessary. And we cannot lose confidence
in -- in these universal values.

THE PRESIDENT: You have people involved. Thank you for that. That's a
good question. She asked, what can young people do to get involved? First
of all, the fact that you asked a question is an encouraging sign.

I like to tell people that the true strength of America is the hearts and
souls of our people. You know, our military might is strong; our wallets
are fatter than anybody else's in the world on an individual per capita
basis. But the true strength of our country is the fact that neighbors
love neighbors.

De Tocqueville saw this when he came to the United States in 1830s. He was
a traveler, and he came and said, I'm coming to the land of the rugged
individualist. And he discovered something interesting way back in 1832, I
think it was, when he wrote his book. He discovered that Americans have a
penchant, the desire to form voluntary associations to help a neighbor.
And it's that spirit of helping a neighbor that Presidents should foster
and encourage, because it really is the strength of the United States of
America.

When you really think about the community of Charlotte, in spite of the
fact that the federal government has got influence, or the City Council has
got influence, there are thousands of your fellow citizens teaching a child
to read. And it doesn't require one law. There are people feeding the
hungry. I bet you've got some of the great food pantry programs in the
United States of America here. There are people providing shelter for the
homeless. There are thousands of acts of kindness. The Boy Scout troops
are active, I bet. The Girl Scouts. These are -- the little league
programs, you know. The basketball programs. They -- there's thousands of
acts of kindness taking place on a daily basis.

To answer your question, involvement can mean a lot of things. It can mean
serving in the military, it can mean teaching a child to read, it can mean
getting your classmates to volunteer to help feed the hungry. There's
thousands of ways to contribute, and the fact that we have millions of
Americans doing that is really a remarkable aspect of our country.

One of the principles that has guided me is, to whom much is given, much is
required. That's why I'm very proud of our nation's effort to help lead
the effort to solve the HIV/AIDS issue, particularly on the continent of
Africa. We're an abundant nation. We're a blessed people in many ways,
and yet, there's a pandemic raging across the continent of Africa that's
literally having the potential affect of wiping out a generation of people.
And the stories are heartbreaking and they're devastating to a
civilization in many places. And yet, our nation has made the commitment
to spend $15 billion over a five-year period of time to help provide
anti-retroviral drugs to help provide prevention, to help the orphans
who've been left alone. The program is being administered by the U.S.
government.

And one aspect -- there's a Global Fund, as well. Another aspect -- but
the people on the ground, the foot soldiers, many are from the faith
community who have said, I want to help; what can I do to help a neighbor?
The neighbor could be right around the corner, or the neighbor could be on
the continent of Africa, in this case. We are a generous, compassionate
people, and it's our true strength.

Let's see here. Yes, sir. Yes, please.

Q Yes, sir. Actually, I'm bringing a statement to you for a friend.
Sahara Bozan (phonetic) is a young Iraqi woman who just came to America
last year. She grew up under Saddam, and she actually worked for the U.S.
forces during the war as an interpreter. I talked to her this week. She
wanted to make sure that she knew -- that you knew that her family that's
still there is grateful, that she thinks that even though there may be
terrorists still going on, that they are safer now than they ever were
before. And her goal is to one day meet you to thank you in person,
because you have changed their lives. Even though we might not see that in
the press, their lives are much better today than they were three, four
years ago.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir.

Q So she wanted to thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Say, wait a minute, I -- I will keep my word here. Oh
there you are. Yes, sorry. You thought I forgot, didn't you? I beg your
pardon, I did forget. (Laughter.) You know how guys near 60, they begin
to kind of -- (Laughter.)

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: A civics teacher, great, thank you. Thank you for
teaching.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate -- that's a very good question. First of
all, thank you for teaching. By the way -- (Applause.) As you grow up,
the lady behind you, the girl behind you, as you grow up, one way to
contribute is to teach, by the way.

The global war on terror requires a global response, and inherent in this
woman's question was: What are you doing to make sure that others join the
United States, recognizing that we cannot do this alone? And I appreciate
the question a lot.

There is a lot of cooperation going on now. One of the great myths is that
the United States is alone in the war on terror. Take, for example,
Afghanistan. No question we've got Special Forces there. No question
we've got a viable element of our military there to fight off al Qaeda or
Taliban as they either sneak across the border or come from different
provinces to try to do harm, but NATO is very actively involved there, as
well.

The NATO presence is in the lead in many of the provinces. There's what's
called provincial reconstruction teams. It's kind of along the lines that
I talked about earlier about localizing the reconstruction efforts on a
provincial basis. This is what's happening in Afghanistan, and there's
reconstruction -- provincial reconstruction teams run by different
countries. Germany has got a presence there. France has had -- has
presence in Afghanistan. In other words, there is a global network there.

In Iraq, as well, there's a lot of coalition forces, some small, some
large. Great Britain, of course, is large. The Japanese had a thousand
troops there. It's an amazing commitment by Prime Minister Koizumi when
you think about the aftermath of World War II. The South Koreans have had
a significant force there. The Poles have had a significant force there.
There's a big international presence there. Many of the -- and the NATO
mission, by the way, is present in Iraq, as well, all aimed at helping
train. They're very much involved in the training mission to give the
Iraqi troops the skills necessary to do their jobs.

The global war on terror is fought on more fronts than just the military
front. For example, one of the really important parts of this war on
terror is to share intelligence, is to be able to say, if you hear somebody
or see somebody coming that you tell a counterpart in another agency --
another intelligence service. And so we spend a lot of time, John
Negroponte, for example, or Porter Goss spends a lot of time with their
counterparts constantly figuring out how best to share information.

Again, in the old war, people could measure movement by the enemy from --
by watching ships and tanks move across plains. Now we're dealing with
people that are kind of moving around stealthily. And we've got to be in a
position where we can share that intelligence.

The third aspect of the global war on terror is to cut off their money. It
turns out terrorists need money -- just like the federal government spends
money. And it's a -- so we're -- our Secretary of Treasury, John Snow, and
others are constantly working to make sure that hawalas, for example, which
are kind of a money transmitting entity, doesn't -- includes terrorist
financing. Or we worked with the Saudi government to make it clear that
the financing of terrorist activities are not in our interest, obviously,
or their interest.

By the way, the Saudi government has been very active in the war on terror.
They've got a list of al Qaeda potential killers, and they're bringing
them to justice. Pakistan has been a strong ally in the war on terror.
You might remember that President Musharraf was one of three countries --
or that Pakistan under President Musharraf was one of three countries that
had recognized the Taliban. And so needless to say after September the
11th, he was -- made a choice. Colin Powell did a wonderful job of talking
to President Musharraf in a very respectful and dignified way, and
basically said, who are you with? And he has been an ally in the war on
terror.

The interesting thing about President Musharraf is the enemy has tried to
kill him four times. There have been four assassination attempts on him by
al Qaeda, which causes him to be a strong ally in the war on terror.
(Laughter.)

And so it's a great question. I'm constantly working to remind people
about the stakes. I knew one of the real dangers after 9/11 was that
people would tend to forget the lessons learned. And that's normal. And
frankly, if you're the President of the United States, you want normalcy.
You want people to go back to their life as quickly as possible.

And so it's -- my job is to travel the country, like I'm doing a lot of,
and saying, here are the stakes. Go ahead and live your life, and risk
capital and raise your families, let us worry about it. And it's such a
different kind of war that we're constantly having to work with our allies,
as well, to remind them about the stakes.

The enemy has reminded them about the stakes. Remember that ours isn't the
only country that's been attacked. There were attacks in Madrid, there
were attacks in London, attacks in Egypt, there's been a series of attacks
around the world -- Jordan. They go up -- al Qaeda goes in and blows up a
wedding. These are cold-blooded killers now. These are people that will
stop at nothing to achieve their objectives.

And so -- no, that's a great question. And the coalition is -- it's been a
large coalition, and we're constantly working it. Some countries feel
comfortable about helping in Afghanistan, some -- that same country may not
feel comfortable about Iraq. But either way, we're talking about this war
on terror on a regular basis.

Q It's an honor to stand here in front of you and ask you this question.
You talked a little bit about your decision-making ability, and you've
been steadfast as it relates to the global war on terror, which I think is
commendable. Another thing I look for in a leader is their ability to look
in hindsight and their ability to be -- a degree of humility. And maybe
wondering what could have been done differently? I wonder if you look back
and go, maybe I should have done this differently? I'd just be curious to
hear that.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I'm constantly looking back to see if
things could be done differently or better. A classic example -- first of
all, I meant what I said on the strategic objective in Iraq. I said in the
'04 campaign, I'm going to say it to you again: Knowing what I know today,
I'd have made the same decision.

The tactics of going in -- one of the interesting questions -- you know,
for example, the training of troops. We started training a military from
ground one, Iraqi military, as if there was going to be a threat from
outside its borders, which, in retrospect, we could have done better.
After all, the threat was not from outside the borders. The threat was
inside the borders as a result of Zarqawi coming in -- coming in the
country.

The police training has now begun in earnest in '06. The fundamental
question is, could we have sped that up, could we have done a better job.
The strategy, I'm convinced, is right, which is to give the Iraqis the
opportunity to defend themselves. The question is, are the tactics in
order to achieve that, could we have done a quicker job, and expedited the
idea of having the Iraqis standing up and us standing down.

I mentioned the reconstruction projects. Again, these are all necessary to
look back to make sure that as we head out into the future, that we're able
to adjust quicker and better. And I spent a lot of time reviewing
decisions made.

There's a -- you know, there's a debate in Washington about the strategic
objective, however. That's different from the tactics on the ground. I
strongly believe what we're doing is the right thing. If I didn't believe
it -- I'm going to repeat what I said before -- I'd pull the troops out,
nor if I believed we could win [sic], I would pull the troops out.

There is a -- the military are constantly taking a real-time analysis based
upon previous decisions and what they anticipate the needs to be. And so
they themselves are constantly evaluating what could have been done
differently.

Obviously, one classic case that hurt us that I wish were done differently
was Abu Ghraib, the prison. What took place there and the pictures there
just represented everything we didn't stand for. And it hurt us. It hurt
us in the international arena, particularly in the Muslim world, where they
said, look -- it gave the enemy a fantastic opportunity to use it for
propaganda reasons. Look at the United States of America. Look what
they're doing to these people. They're disgracing -- they don't believe in
the dignity of each person, and, in fact, we do. I wish that could be done
over. It was a disgraceful experience. However, I'm proud to report that
the people who made that decision are being brought to justice, and there
was a full investigation over why something like that could have happened.

And so, yes, I do. Look, I fully understand there is -- I guess, my
reputation is, he sticks to his guns and -- it's a very legitimate
question, do you ever kind of understand that maybe that you've got to be
somewhat flexible?

I'm not flexible in my principles. I think if you're flexible in your
principles, you end up not making sound decision. But I do agree with your
question that a President has got to be capable of looking back and
learning from how things could have been done differently. Great question.
Thank you.

Okay, squeaky wheels. There's three of you up there. Is this like a
chorus? (Laughter.) Would you please decide among yourselves?

Q I've got the mike.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, yes, very good. (Laughter and applause.) Good move.

Q You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But
while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to
tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to
preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating
safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to
make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own
behalf. You are --

Q Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I
-- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened
by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate,
and --

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.

Q And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion
and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and
I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to
be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really
appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you
right now. That is part of what this country is about.

THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)

Q And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in
this room, but I do appreciate that.

THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate --

Q I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to
you.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it, thank you. Let me --

Q Can I ask a question?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to start off with what you first said, if you
don't mind, you said that I tap your phones -- I think that's what you
said. You tapped your phone -- I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that's
right. Yes, no, let me finish.

I'd like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country.
You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I'm not
going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program,
and I'll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not
connecting the dots, that we didn't do everything we could to protect you
or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for
helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there
anything more we could do.

And there -- out of this national -- NSA came the recommendation that it
would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the
country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time
information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made
sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the
constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers -- and we've got plenty of
them in Washington -- but they made this assessment that it was
constitutional for me to make that decision.

I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress
from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made
in order to protect the American people. And so members of both parties,
both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or
not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. It seems like
-- to make sense, if we're at war, we ought to be using tools necessary
within the Constitution, on a very limited basis, a program that's reviewed
constantly to protect us.

Now, you and I have a different -- of agreement on what is needed to be
protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer -- answer
is, absolutely not. (Applause.)

Q Mr. President, I was raised on a ranch in New Mexico. And my heroes
have always been cowboys.

THE PRESIDENT: There you go. Thank you, yes. (Laughter.) I'm not sure I
qualify as a cowboy. (Laughter.)

Q Thinking about our children's children, if the all-powerful granter of
the presidential request were to visit you this evening and give you one of
these three, of ongoing economic growth and security for America, ridding
the world of the security threat now posed by North Korea and Iran, or
establishing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which one --

THE PRESIDENT: Whew. (Laughter.) Back to back, you know? (Laughter.) I
don't -- that's not the way life works. You can do more than one thing at
one time. We can achieve peace with the -- we can win this war on terror
if we're steadfast and strong. It's not going to happen on my watch. It's
going to take awhile. We can spread liberty and freedom to create peace.
And we can work on the Palestinian-Israeli issue at the same time. I am
the first President to have articulated two states living side-by-side in
peace.

And I'm also a President who believed that the Palestinians needed to have
elections. There's an interesting debate in Washington, is do you wait for
the conditions to be perfect before elections, that the institutions be in
place before there are elections, or do you have elections as a step toward
a civil society and a democratic society? As you know, I've taken the
latter rather than the former, and encouraged the Palestinian elections.

And what was interesting about those elections is that -- and since then,
by the way, the Israelis have had elections. The Palestinian elections --
let me just step back. I think the Palestinians have been a long-suffering
people that deserve better government. The former leadership turned out to
be corrupt, like, stole money. And as a result of his leadership, we never
got very close to peace. There wasn't a lasting -- there weren't lasting
institutions in place. I believe democracies don't war.

And so the election was really an interesting one, I think, recently.
Guess what the election -- was based on? Corruption. This is the
Palestinian elections. Anti-corruption campaigns; vote for me, we're not
going to steal your money; vote for me, we'll help educate your kids and
provide health care. The dilemma we're in -- it's not a dilemma. I made
the decision that if you believe in two states living side-by-side in
peace, then one of the parties in the state -- one of the parties cannot
declare their intentions to destroy the other party. That's not peaceful.
That is war-like.

And so our posture at this point in time is to say to the Palestinians,
Hamas, get rid of it; get rid of that platform. It's not a peaceful
platform. It's a war-like platform. We want there to be two states
side-by-side in peace.

We've also said, we'll help the people, but not the government. You know,
somebody said, well, you support elections. I said, yes, I do. I don't
necessarily have to like who wins. But I do think it was a necessary part
of the evolution of the state to have the Palestinian people be able to
say, we're sick of it. We're sick of the status quo. We want something
differently. We want a government that's honest, and we want a government
that listens to our demands. I thought it was a positive development. And
now, I would strongly urge the Hamas government to change their tune and
their rhetoric about Israel and advocate the peace and work toward a civil
society that will yield to lasting peace.

Again, this is an issue where I'm -- progress is being made, but it
requires a steadfast support of our belief that democracies will yield to
peace.

Q Thank you. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I am Wihelmenia
Remert (phonetic). I serve as Vice Chair of the Board of County Commission
here in Mecklenburg County. I'm joined by my colleague, Commissioner
Dumont Clarke, and we welcome you to Mecklenburg County.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q I defer my own question to ask you a question of one of my students at
Winthrop University, where I'm a professor of social work, asked me to
bring to your attention, and that is, what can you, Mr. President, and what
will you do to help control the rising cost of fuel which is really
affecting the ability of many students to travel, and the rest of us -- not
just students -- to travel back and forth to work and to school? Thank
you.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. (Applause.) I wish I could wave a wand
and say, we need more gasoline relative to demand. I don't have the
capacity to control the market. I do have the capacity to start leading
this country away from dependence on oil. And I believe that we need to
promote -- vigorously promote alternative sources of energy, starting with
ethanol, which could help the farmers around here, by the way. There's a
lot of ethanol -- ethanol basically right now is produced from corn. In
the Midwest, a lot of people are using more ethanol -- and to promote
technologies such as plug-in hybrid batteries. We're close to some
significant breakthroughs. By the way, this is where Republicans and
Democrats are working together in Washington, D.C. to provide the funding
necessary for technology to help lead us away from dependency on oil.

And so this isn't going to help your person tomorrow -- I readily concede.
But it is going to -- it's going to, in the relatively near future, be able
to enable people to plug their car in and drive the first 40 miles on
battery, as opposed to using gasoline.

And so there is a real need -- that's why I put this in the State of the
Union -- a real need for us to diversify away from fossil fuels, not only
to protect the environment, Mister, but also for national and economic
security reasons. And the -- we're making progress.

I was able to make a decision right after Katrina that helped deal with the
-- what could have been a -- even stronger rise in the price of gasoline.
I was able to suspend EPA rules because of the natural disaster that took
place. And by suspending the blended rules that can create disruption as
these -- as the seasonal change, there's a disruption in supply, by
suspending those rules, it enabled us to import more European gasoline.
And that, in turn, provided stability in the marketplace. And so we didn't
have significant spikes.

I fully understand the effects of gasoline price raises on people who are
working. It's like a tax. Every time it goes up at the pump, people are
like paying a tax. And the long-term solution is to get off oil. And we
are aggressively doing so.